The Judiciary - Our Third Head

Article. III.

Section. 1. The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

Section. 2. The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; — to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; — to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; — to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; — to Controversies between two or more States; — between a State and Citizens of another State [Modified by Amendment XI]; — between Citizens of different States; — between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.
In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

Section. 3. Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

I have several issues with our court system.

First, I believe that if a person passes the bar exam in any state, they are a part of the judiciary; and therefore they are at Bar and hence, should be excluded from serving in  the legislative branch of the government; to serve in the legislative branch would be a conflict of interest. Their (the judiciary's) job is to interpret the law as written and decide on the validity of the law.  When we have lawyers writing the laws, we (the general public) have difficulty understanding the verbiage of that law primarily due to the attorney's use of vocabulary with which the average person is not acquainted.  And, it is the obligation of each and every citizen to know and abide by all of the laws passed by Congress.  I contend that that is a virtual impossibility since congress passes on average 758 bills each year.  Read the article below to show the futility of our law making system. I contend that we can scrap about 50,000 laws and be much better off.  I believe that a Congressman's effectiveness should not be measured by the amount of new legislation he writes (ala Sean Hannity), but rather by the amount of pork he cuts from proposed new legislation, as well as, the number of new legislation that he refuses to pass just because.
 
"With all of the dysfunction in Congress as of late, it should come as no surprise to that out of the 5,140 bills and resolutions before Congress, only 5% will ever be signed into law. But the sheer extent of inaction in today's Congress is worth noting. When the 112th Congress came to a close last year, it was deemed the least productive on record, having passed just 561 out of the 6,845 bills introduced, well below the running average of 758 bills passed each session. The 113th Congress is well on its way to beating that record as only 15 bills have passed in the first six months of session; the 112th had signed 23 in that time.

Theoretically speaking, less legislation should be a good thing. Fewer laws and regulations equal a smaller government, thereby putting more power into the hands of the people. However, while we see fewer bills, the bills are becoming larger and larger, wrapped up in massive omnibus packages that fill binders heavy enough to kill your average Hill intern.

Last year, Senator Rand Paul took the Senate floor to call out Congress for not reading the bills in front of them. He bemoans this practice using a 600-page bill he had received only earlier that morning as an example: “600 pages, no one will read it. No wonder our approval rating is 10%, nobody knows what we’re voting on.” Just think, if our representatives don’t have time to read a 600-page bill before voting, how can they possibly make an informed decision to vote on bills that are over 1,000 pages? If you’ve ever tried making sense out of even 20 pages of congressional language, you know this is an impossible task.

The Affordable Care Act, for example, is a daunting 2,700 pages (not including the 20,000 pages of regulations); a number which made the Supreme Court cry “cruel and unusual punishment.” Then, of course, there is former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi’s infamous “pass it to find out what is in it” comment. This pass now, read later philosophy has continued into this Congress as well. Senators were given only 72 hours to review the 1,200-page immigration reform bill before voting at the end of June.

Is this the way that we want Congress to be run? Votes on thousand-page bills no one reads? What happens when massive legislative packages come before Congress? Pork. Pet projects, bridges to nowhere, obscure regulations, you name it. The special interests win and Americans lose. They get away with it because there is no accountability if no one can feasibly read these packages in their entirety.

So much for the transparency President Obama promised us time and time again. America deserves better. The American people deserve an accountable, transparent legislative process. Americans deserve a Congress that has the time to read bills before they pass them. Is that too much to ask?"

Next, I believe that the Supreme Court Judges should base their decision(s) on then law and not on how someone else prior to their tenure interpreted the law; and that they should look at the body and spirit of what was written and not just pick out one word like "The" in the third paragraph and make a judgement on what that one little article (sometimes adjective or descriptive adjective) of speech and base an opinion on that one word.  How they interpret a question before them sometimes borders on the criminal.  And, many times they come up with the wrong conclusion.  Sometimes I believe that they are afraid to upset the legislature or what the President wants since he appointed them.  When actually, an eight grader can conclude or decide better than they.

Am I wrong?  Tell me what you think!

Until next time, I am Eldee Charles Spratt, "The" American President, and I want your vote and support in 2016.